From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17039 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2012 09:06:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 17028 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2012 09:06:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:06:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2F9676X028398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:06:07 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2F963uW022794 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:06:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:06:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Thomas Schwinge Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [testuite patch] Fix cross-arch .S testsuite files compatibility Message-ID: <20120315090602.GA7079@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120314201849.GB1412@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87aa3ikzrs.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87aa3ikzrs.fsf@schwinge.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00525.txt.bz2 On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:57:11 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > In my patch I had explicitly taken care to replace .long with .4byte only > in .debug_* sections (and only in files that are not x86-specific, as it > doesn't matter for those). You're now proposing such changes, too: I checked specifically the "v" case where .debug_info already expects it takes _4_ bytes: .byte 0x4 /* DW_AT_byte_size */ It is true I did not check other cases but: > I just wanted to check whether we can be sure that .4byte always conveys > the same meaning as .long did in such cases? as these testfiles were created on x86* .long is compiled there as .4byte. This means that any such occurence of .long can be replaced by .4byte. > Can there be other semantic differences between the two? It is a good question and I am not aware of any such differences. > (And no, I don't think you could reasonably encode ``don't allow .long -- > but only in .debug_* sections'' in the ARI system...) :-) Fortunately we do not need full freedoms for the testfiles, we may restrict them arbitrarily as long as one can write the needed testfiles afterwards. Some of such restrictions would affecth gdb.arch/gdb.disasm testfiles so I rather excluded them from the ARI verifications. gdb.arch/gdb.disasm testfiles are not made as multi-arch, therefore these arch-compatibility issues should not affect them. Thanks, Jan